On the U.S. Government’s Budget Deficits and Debt: American Democracy Unhinged

It is true that a government’s budget can be read as a blueprint of priorities in terms of what is valued, and what is not so highly valued. The blueprint itself, as a whole, also evinces a priority in terms of values. As the big-ticket items, such as large spending categories and massive tax-cuts, get the most attention, whether a budget is in balance can go by the wayside, and what that says about the electorate (and thus the state of democracy) can easily be missed. Ultimately, public policy and even the votes of the elected representatives point back to the popular sovereign, the People—more specifically, the electorate, and its values. By 2024, the deficit and accumulated debt of the U.S. Government had reached such gigantic numbers that something could be said to be amiss concerning those values. The underlying culprit, which can be said to be an illness that is human, all too human, had by then infected American democracy beyond the wherewithal of virtually any elected federal representative to enunciate well enough that the electorate could look clearly at itself, and thus size itself up beyond the partial diagnoses that can be found in partisan attacks.

In late June, 2024, the (nonpartisan) Congressional Budget Office forecasted a $2 trillion deficit for the year, up from an earlier estimate of $1.6 trillion.[1] At the time, the federal accumulated debt stood at $34 trillion. Whereas in the 1970s, the debt as a percent of GNP was in the low 30s, the percentage for 2023 stood at just over 120 percent. Clearly, the trajectory of deficits and debt was disproportionate even on a percentage basis. Furthermore, interest payments made by the U.S. Government, which the CBO director said were “large by historical standards,”[2] were poised to exceed the entire defense budget in 2024; and that recipients of interest-bearing bonds tend to be on the wealthy side, whereas the poor and middle-class pay taxes, the ballooning debt could be viewed as an engine of wealth-transfer from the poor to the rich via the U.S. Government, hence increasing economic inequality as an indirect effect of fiscal public policy. In short, something systemic was out of balance, with ethical implications.

Blaming large ticket items (i.e., federal spending) provides us with an easy target but only gets at a symptom. Regarding the 2024 fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office pointed to the $145 billion cost of the President’s changes to student loans and the $95 billion foreign aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan enacted in April as the two largest factors.[3] Almost a trillion dollars for three countries. Healthcare costs came in third.

To be sure, the changes in student-loan policy under President Biden were in large part due to the spurious vocational claims of for-profit “universities and feckless accrediting agencies, with unemployed former students as the victims. The foreign-aid spending was associated with foreign policy objectives—holding back Russia and sending a message that military aggression (by Russia) is no longer acceptable in the 21^st century being foremost. In short, both deficit-growing factors were oriented to protecting victims, and thus could be justified ethically. Increased public health-insurance costs too can be justified ethically, given the value of health irrespective of income and wealth.

Even lofty goals come with costs, however, which may not be affordable. A sovereign government with the authority to “print money” need not be constrained by what it can afford, absent constitutional language mandating a balanced budget. Of course, spending is only half of the deficit equation; taxation being the other. That spending had been outstripping revenue since the Clinton administration can be traced back to the Reagan tax cuts. Regarding the deficit in 2024, the Trump tax cuts should also be remembered. Moreover, the refusal of Congresses and presidents to raise taxes to cover increases in spending when the economy is fine or (especially) good is also a factor in how the U.S. Government’s debt got to $34 trillion.

Both the proclivity to increase government spending and the reluctance to increase taxes (or defeat tax-cut proposals) leads us directly “under the hood” to popular sovereignty: Government by the People. That is to say, the American electorate is ultimately to blame for not electing representatives, senators, and presidents who resist the twin temptations. To be sure, differing political ideologies on the proper size of government, and, more specifically, the federal government, are also legitimate in voting decisions.

A believer in a small federal government, harkening back to Thomas Jefferson, might vote for candidates in favor of tax cuts in order to “starve” the federal government. But this strategy ignores the unlimited ability of that government to enact spending bills. A “small government” ideology should go after spending and taxes with enough tax revenue over spending in the out years to pay off the accumulated debt.

A believer in a large federal government (in absolute terms and relative to those of the states) has no problem resisting tax-cut proposals; it is the notion that a government can or should grow by increased spending, especially without increased taxation to cover both the additional spending and to pay off the accumulated debt, that is problematic.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. deficits (and debt) were significant in political discourse. David Stockton, President Reagan’s head of the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), wrote The Triumph of Politics to explain why Reagan failed to bring down the deficit numbers. The imbalance was in the public’s aversion to cutting domestic spending, Reagan’s increase in defense spending, and the president’s tax-cuts. In terms of the American electorate, the desire for immediate consumption, which includes tax-cuts, combined with the lack of responsibility can be cited as the ultimate source of the imbalance that may be inherent in democracy itself.

It is significant that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams agreed long after they were out of the political arena that a viable republic requires an educated and virtuous citizenry. Put another way, self-government requires a sense of responsibility in terms of fiscal governance. That the debt of the U.S. Government had been allowed to reach $34 trillion by 2024 can be interpreted as a verdict, or an x-ray, on just how fit the American electorate had been to govern itself through its chosen representatives. The real threat to American democracy lies within. The threat, in fact, by 2024 may have become much more serious than even that of unbalanced fiscal policy.  For the proverbial invisible “elephant in the room” may no longer have merely been the failure of the American electorate to exercise its popular sovereignty with fiscal responsibility on governmental taxation and spending: the rising unexamined question may ironically have already relegated fiscal responsibility altogether in silently asking whether $34 trillion ever gets paid off. Like an insect whose legs are still twitching even though it is already dead, the U.S. Government may have already been effectively bankrupt without anyone realizing it. If this was already de facto the case by 2024, then the damning verdict, not seen yet in plain sight, would be on another level entirely. 

---

1. Jennifer Scholtes, “$2T in Red Ink: Foreign Aid, Biden’s Student Loan Policies Hike U.S. Deficit Forecast,” Politico, June 18, 2024 (accessed June 22, 2024).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

When Partisanship Takes on Science on Global Warming: The Part before the Whole

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams concurred on the following preference—namely, a natural aristocracy of virtue and talent over the artificial sort of birth and wealth. Talent here is not merely skill, but also knowledge. Hence the two former U.S. presidents agreed that citizens ought to be given a broad basic education in free schools. The corollary is that as a citizenry lapses in virtue and knowledge, decadence will show up in public discourse and consequently public policy. If kept unchecked, the tendency is for the republic to fall.
Therefore, as governor of Virginia, Jefferson proposed a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge in 1779. His rationale was that because even “those entrusted with power” who seek to protect individual rights can become tyrants, popular education is necessary to render a republic secure. Jefferson’s hope was that by teaching “the people at large” examples of despots in history, the electorate would be more likely to recognize despots in their own time and throw the bastards out on their noses. As for those whom voters put in public offices, Jefferson believed that “laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest.” Hence, “those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights of their fellow citizens.” This is why, beginning at around 1900, law schools in the American states began to admit applicants to the undergraduate degree in law (LL.B. or J.D.) who had already earned an undergraduate degree in the liberal arts and sciences. It was not as though the undergraduate degree in law had been promoted to graduate status.
Having had largely self-governing, popularly-elected colonial legislatures for much of the seventeenth century, the nascent American republics would stand on the two pillars of virtue and talent (including knowledge) instilled in the self-governing peoples themselves as well as their elected and appointed public officials. It is said that the only constant is change, as in the extent to which an electorate is virtuous and generally knowledgeable, as well as in the related rise and fall of republics. One notable example is ancient Rome, which went from being a republic to a dictatorship under the purported exigencies of war. Lest the rise and fall of republics seems a bit too dramatic to be considered realistic, I offer the more modest thesis that a decline in virtue and knowledge among an electorate renders the public policy increasingly deficient in dealing with contemporary problems. The matter of climate change is a case in point.

According to a study at Yale in April 2013, Americans’ conviction that global warming was happening had dropped by seven percentage-points over the preceding six months to 63 percent. The unusually cold March—quite a reversal from the previous March—explains the drop, according to the poll’s authors. The cold may actually have resulted from a loosening in the artic jet-stream southward—like a rubber-band whose elasticity has been compromised—due to more open water in the arctic ocean and thus less temperature differential in the air. Even so, only 49% of Americans believed that human activities were contributing to global warming. In fact, only 42% of Americans believed at the time that most scientists had concluded that global warming is really happening. Thirty-three percent of Americans were convinced that “widespread disagreement” exists among scientists.
In actuality, a study showed of more than 4,000 articles touching on human-sourced climate change, 97% of the scientists having written the articles conclude that human-caused change was already happening. Less than 3% either rejected the notion or remained undecided. “There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception,” one of the study’s authors remarked. “It’s staggering given the evidence for consensus that less than half of the general public think scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This is significant,” the author concludes, “because when people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they’re more likely to support policies that take action on it.” Going back to Jefferson and Adams, ignorance among the electorate in a republic can be sufficient to divert enough political will that legislation needed to fix a societal (or global) problem is sufficiently thwarted.
Perhaps some of the apparent ignorance on global warming in 2013 could actually have been partisan angst. If President Obama favored policies predicated on the assumption that human-sourced global warming was then already underway, just his support alone could have been enough for some Republicans to hold firm in their denial of even other-sourced global warming. In holding knowledge hostage to score cheap partisan points, citizens and their representatives do not demonstrate much respect for knowledge as well as virtue; the vice of partisanship subdues the good of the whole in preference for the good of a part.
If Jefferson and Adams were correct that a virtuous and knowledgeable citizenry is vital to the continuance of a republic, the extent of ignorance and partisan vice related to global warming in spite of the nearly unanimous scientific conclusion and the huge stakes involved may suggest that the American republics and the grand republic of the Union may be on borrowed time (and money). Moreover, that the ignorance and vice pertains to global warming enlarges the implications to include the continuance of the species. That is to say, a virtuous and educated species may be necessary for its very survival.

See this PSA on global warming: http://www.thewordenreport.blogspot.com/2013/05/global-warming-psa.html


Academic Sources:

Philip Costopoulos, “Jefferson, Adams, and the Natural Aristocracy,” First Things, May 1990.

Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, “Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013,” Yale School of Forestry and Environomental Studies, 2013.

John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Mark Richardson, et al, “Quantifying the Consensus on Ahthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” Environmental Research Letters, 8 (2013) (2), pp.

Press Source:

Tom Zeller, “Scientists Agree (Again): Climate Change Is Happening,” The Huffington Post, May 16, 2013.

U.S.Budget Deficits: Of Virtue or Vice?

Chronic government fiscal deficits, and thus debt, may suggest that a people is not up to self-governance. Moreover, the imbalance may be a drawback of democracy itself. That is to say, a people may not have sufficient will to constrain its own consumption to that which the people are willing to pay.

 

In the period from 1970 to 2012, that the vast majority of the years show a deficit indicates the difficulty involved in elected representatives voting to ensure that the people pay in taxes as much or more than the government spends. “It’s an extraordinarily dangerous situation,” former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in 2012. “I believe we underestimate the size of current financial imbalances and how difficult it will be to resolve them. We’re trying to do this without pain. There’s just no credible scenario in which that happens.” The key phrase here is “without pain,” for it points to the underlying mentality that was pushing back a viable solution. To be sure, both the widening deficits and lack of desire to close the gaps from 2009 could draw on Keynes’ theory that governments should spend more and tax less during a recession in order to stimulate economic growth. However, the sheer number of years between 1970 and 2012 with significant deficits in terms of GDP suggests that the rationale has at best limited applicability. Even in the context of recession, the fact that the deficits were over $1 trillion in each of the four years after 2008 suggests that something else is in the mix. Nor could “wartime spending” be cited for those deficits, as significant domestic spending was also involved. Moreover, the U.S. was not at war during all the years of deficit spending from 1970 to 2012. In other words, something more systemic was going on throughout the period than recession or war.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the federal debt in the U.S. grew “through a combination of economic downturns, tax cuts and spending choices made by lawmakers and presidents from both parties.” It is not a partisan matter; rather, it involves choices made by elected representatives irrespective of party-affiliation. For this reason, we can begin to suspect democracy itself as the culprit, and below this the values and mentality (and indeed character) of the voters. In particular, too many are too fine with spending or consuming without feeling the need to pay for it in a timely manner. This is ultimately a question of values behind one’s character. At the political level, this manifests as societal or cultural in nature; even so, the imbalance is really in the individual psyche itself.
The vice is one of slothful selfishness at the expense of others—those in the future who will ultimately either have to pay the bill or see the government default. It is significant in this regard that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams agreed that a virtuous citizenry is necessary for a viable republic to endure. The question is perhaps what happens to it once a citizenry is no longer virtuous. Collapse even from a fundamental lack of fiscal balance can be stayed by the inertia of the status quo, as though a ship kept moving by its own momentum for a considerable time. In the soothing motion, the passengers can easily be lulled into the sensation that all is well.

 

Source: Damian Paletta, “Tough Calls on Deficit Await the Winner,” The Wall Street Journal, November 6, 2012.

Preparing for the U.S. Presidency: Build a Resume

How should an aspiring candidate for President of the United States go about attaining that esteemed office?—an office whose occupant was regularly referred to as “the leader of the free world” when part of that world was behind an iron curtain. Mitt Romney spent six years of his life campaigning for the job only to lose it to an incumbent whose record on “pocket-book issues: was mixed at best. Perhaps it is possible to want something too much. Fortunately, a more substantive alternative is also possible.

Hillary Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State.           

                                                                                                           
As Hillary Clinton was nearing the end of her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, Michael Bloomberg, who was nearing the end of his own mayoralty in New York City, encouraged her to run for his office. Being every bit “New York,” the New York Times refers to the option as “trading international diplomacy for municipal management on the grandest scale.” In case anyone misses my sarcasm here, I should add that being mayor of New York City is not merely executive experience on a grand scale. Being chief executive of The City could be comparable to being governor of some states. Accordingly, becoming mayor of the city that never sleeps could give the former legislator and chief diplomat significant experience as a chief executive. Ironically, the latter could be most essential to the presidency.

Alternatively, were Hillary Clinton really intent at the time on running for presidency, political consultants might have been whispering in her other ear, “you need to get up to New Hampshire and over to Iowa.” However, early and regular visits to those states do not, as the case of Mitt Romney suggests, necessarily translate into winning come election day. This is not to say that a third alternative, such as taking a well-deserved break—maybe writing a book—might not be preferable to being mayor of New York City. Nevertheless, in the choice between never-ending campaigning and governing, it would be nice to think that the American people would reward substance over excess eagerness. The people have not exactly demanded of a president that he (or she) be a senior statesman when it comes to governmental experience. John Adams had been U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain (besides having had a hand in the writing of the U.S. Constitution) before being elected president. Thomas Jefferson had been the U.S. Secretary of State (besides having had a hand in, well…you know). Had he lived, James Hamilton might have been president after having served as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury. Experience can even be ex post facto, as when President Taft joined the U.S. Supreme Court after serving as president.

From the perspective of having several substantive governmental offices, an occupant of the office of U.S. president can have both wisdom and perspective. That is, such a person would be more likely to discern instinctively the forest from those particular trees that demand too much attention. Such a person would be more oriented to the system as a whole, as President Jackson was when he opposed funding the Second National Bank of the U.S. even as he opposed South Carolina’s nullification act (by which the state legislature could invalidate U.S. laws detrimental to the state’s interest). That is to say, the president was oriented to protecting what he saw as a balance in the federal system. His perspective was systemic and thus not primarily partisan or even bureaucratic in nature.

To be sure, putting someone in the office who might be suspected of sporting a suitable countenance is ultimately up to the American people—whether we value it enough. Lest it be pointed out that few candidates could be found, it is also up to the candidates themselves—whether they are willing to substitute more governmental experience for the seemingly endless parade of chicken dinners. To those candidates, I would say: focus on the knitting and the campaigning will take care of itself; focus on the campaigning, however, and the sweater could slowly unravel from all the waving and handshakes. In short: have faith that investing in governing now will pay off later. This could mean trusting in the judgment of the American electorate, or being a leader (hence gaining leadership experience!) by providing a higher example of real presidential material. Of course, the people may not be wise or virtuous enough of character to grasp such leadership, in which case the republic itself will decline even in spite of the suitable candidates.

Source:

Michael Barbaro, “Clinton for Mayor in ’13?Bloomberg Asked Her to Consider Succeeding Him,” The New York Times, December 4, 2012.

Honeywell’s David Cote: Carrying the Water in Washington

In the midst of the talks in Washington in 2012 to avoid the so-called fiscal “cliff” with a bipartisan deal, the Wall Street Journal reported that David Cote, the CEO of Honeywell, a $48 billion “industrial giant,” was at the time “the business executive most in the middle of the fiscal-cliff debate.” The Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) said, "People on both sides of the aisle are sending messages through Dave. He's become an active participant.” For a sitting CEO to have ensconced himself so deeply among the power-players in Washington did not come controversy-free. Even though his company had a vested interest that a deal be reached, the matter of his involvement raises larger implications, positive as well as negative.

David Cote, CEO of Honeywell. Civic duty or getting "his people" back in line in Washington?       Bloomberg News

 "I'm being accused of all kinds of nefarious motives just because I'm a CEO," Cote claimed. He also conceded his cause diverts a lot of time from his job but says he tries to make it up from his personal time. In any case, "the best for my shareholders is a robust economy," he explained, "which can't happen if the country is gridlocked over debt." True enough—a rising tide benefits all boats. However, as the Wall Street Journal points out, “Cote's efforts could benefit his business. Absent a cliff deal, deep cuts in federal spending on defense and many other programs will kick in. Success in averting them could help Honeywell, an aerospace and defense contractor that draws 10% of its $38 billion in annual sales from the government.” This point could not have been lost on the CEO. Honeywell’s stockholders were not volunteering their CEO in a sort of civic duty or good “corporate citizenship.”

Moreover, that the CEO of a major defense contractor was spending so much of his time as a go-between in Washington so a deal that would obviate automatic cuts including defense spending might have a better chance of being reached by Republican and Democratic leaders points to the depth of interest by the military-industrial complex in the task. I would not be surprised to learn that various government officials, including the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, were not themselves “carrying the water” for the government-dependent sector in stirring up doomsday predictions lest a deal not be reached in time to avoid “falling off the cliff.” Besides influencing the debate itself through ads and other, less transparent means, the sector with the most to lose was “bucking up” to keep the defense contracts coming. From this standpoint, it is surprising that Washington’s political elite had not fallen into line and come up with a deal by November.

“We’re not confident that our guys can govern anymore,” Cote observed as he was carrying messages between Republican Congressional leaders and the White House. While this observation could be oriented to the lack of responsiveness to the “sway” of the military-industrial complex in the halls of power, he said his role as political-deal-facilitator has been a "revelation” on how dysfunctional Washington had become simply in terms of being able to get along. "I meet people on both sides I like and find reasonable,” he said, “but they aren't working together." This is particularly significant, given the interest of the complex that a deal be reached. Might it be that ideological differences on government (or even immaturity) can actually bristle at, or even resist the power of money in Washington?

For instance, has ideology in the Republican Party on the role of government in the economy gone against the interests of Wall Street or corporate America, or is the ideology effectively a reflection of the whatever that base determines is its rightful interest? I suspect that there was no way that Republican leaders were going to let a deal slip by, even given the appearances to the contrary in the meantime as the leaders sought to get better terms by waiting until the last possible moment to seal a deal. However, were such a resolution “in the cards” given the underlying “marching orders,” why would Honeywell’s CEO have been spending so much time “carrying the water” in Washington?

That there might have actually even been a chance that the military-industrial complex could be subject to budget cuts is amazing, considering the power of money in the United States. Put another way, why would a man whose total direct compensation in 2011 was $25 million and whose retirement package assets were at $78 million feel the need to carry anyone’s water—especially given that his “Fix the Debt” non-profit had raised $43 by mid-December 2012 and could unleash television ads against “dysfunctional” elected officials who had not “gotten the message.” Something is really up when a real insider feels compelled to get so explicitly and personally involved—even given Honeywell’s financial interest that a deal be reached.

In short, there are wider implications for David Cote’s involvement amid the political class in Washington. His own, his company’s, and his sector’s financial interests notwithstanding, that a person of his stature would roll up his sleeves and get to work in “dysfunctional” Washington suggests that he is exactly the sort of person to who the American Founders would have called on to serve his country out of a sense of civic duty. Even as Obama was being urged to put Cote in his cabinet as Treasury or Commerce secretary, the CEO was saying, "I can't wait to get out of here and back to my day job." This sentiment, rather than a desire to run for office, should be “just the ticket” needed for admission to a fixed term of “duty” in Washington—then freedom. This is what citizenship means—realistically in the context of even vested interests. Even as Cote doubtless had his in mind, he was also going beyond the pale as a CEO actively working to craft a deal in at the highest level of the U.S. Government.

To be sure, David Cote could have been a rare snapshot of the military-industrial complex getting  "its people" back into line in a Washington "unhinged" from its real principals. However, it could also be that the man deserves a lot of credit for stepping up to the plate in a ballpark not typically frequented by CEOs not only to protect his company, but also to tackle the systemic imbalance evinced in a public federal debt of over $16 trillion at the time. If so, the President would have been well advised to use him well—rather than too much—out of respect for the man’s public service. A restoration of the civic duty of citizenship can indeed be distinguished from the threat of plutocracy to a republic.

Source:

Monica Langley, “Honeywell CEO in the Middleof Fiscal Cliff Standoff,” The Wall Street Journal, December 13, 2012.

Instant Gratification Rules in American Fiscal Policy

With an expected deficit of $1.2 trillion for 2018-2019, the U.S. Government in December, 2017 enacted a tax cut with an expected revenue loss of nearly $1 trillion over a decade (assuming some growth from the tax stimulus) and, two months later, a budget deal passed adding $300 billion to federal spending in the next fiscal year.[1] All this was done with the U.S. debt at over $20 trillion—higher than the annual GDP at the time. With the  economy humming along with a low unemployment rate, the prospect for any fiscal discipline was bleak. Put another way, if budget surpluses could not come at the boom end of an economic cycle, then deficits would be likely in good times and bad. Behind the structural imbalance of contiguous deficits and an ever-growing debt is the all-too-human preference for instant gratification without a corresponding value being placed on self-discipline.

In a republic, the electorate elects representatives in part because direct democracy has no constraint on the immediate passions of a people. In the case of the U.S. Congress and White House,  the representatives had not by 2018 at least resisted the instinct for immediate benefit for the good of the American republics and their peoples—which together constitute the United States. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams agreed in retirement that an educated and virtuous citizenry is vital to a viable republic. The $20 trillion federal debt reflects back on Americans not in a good way in this respect.

For a republic—including one that is also a federation of republics—to be viable over the long term, some allowance for the long term must be made in the form of fiscal discipline. This is essentially self-discipline on a societal level. In the case of the tax cut and additional federal spending, Americans could “expect some of the strongest economic growth” in years.[2] This made the urge for instant gratification particularly alluring. In the medium term, Americans would face “more risk of surging inflation and higher interest rates—fears that were behind a steep stock market sell-off” in early February, 2018.[3] Notice that the negatives begin only in the medium term; hence they do not detract from the instant gratification. In the long term, the U.S. could have less flexibility fiscally in enacting a stimulus to combat a recession or even a crisis like that which had hit Wall Street in September, 2008. Additionally, “higher interest payments could prove a burden on the federal Treasury and on economic growth.”[4] The short term boost in an already booming economy could be expected at the time to hamper economic growth perhaps at a time of recession! Yet the force of this anticipation had no power in the enacting of the tax cut and additional spending. Knowledge, it appears, requires virtue manifesting as self-discipline. That it was missing reflects especially on the elected representatives of both parties, but also on the American electorate that elects and re-elects those representatives with impunity.

---

[1] Neil Irwin, “Austerity Era Comes to End,” The New York Times, February 10, 2018.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

On the Duty of Public Service: The Case of Rep. Eric Cantor

Public service, such as holding public office and defending the homeland under attack, is rooted historically in a duty rather than being intended to further personal ambitions. Hence, public advancement is a reward for having gone beyond the call of duty in one’s public service. To be sure, it is not unheard of that an elected official views his or her post as a launching pad for personal enrichment, whether in terms of wealth or power. When this aim becomes primary, the duty aspect of the public service can easily fall away like a tadpole’s tail off a bumpy toad. U.S. House representative (and majority leader) Eric Cantor is a case in point, both in why he lost his seat and his decision to resign it early rather than finish his term.

U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Mark Wilson, Getty Images)

In his defeat in the Republican primary, Cantor acknowledged the criticism that he had not kept sufficiently in touch with his district. Although his position as majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives involved much work in Washington, D.C., the post was also fodder for further advancement; indeed, having reached the office points to a strong ambition. The duty of a representative to represent his or her constituents can easily be slighted or crowded out by such personal ambition. Essentially, the office becomes a creature of the man rather than the duty.

When Cantor contacted a newspaper hours after he stepped down as the majority leader to make public his intention to resign his seat in time for a special election to coincide with the upcoming general election, he emphasized the fact that his successor would be able to take office immediately and so his constituents would not go without representation.[1] Of course, they would be covered had Cantor decided to serve out his full term, but that would have involved enduring what several Republicans told Politico "the humbling shift from 11 years in the leadership to being a back bencher, even if only for four months."[2] That Cantor never began his move to the small office in the Capitol he had been assigned when he announced he would be stepping down as majority leader suggests that he may have decided on election night to resign his seat rather than serve the remainder of his term. In making that decision (whenever he did it), Cantor was once again putting his own interests above public service; being in Congress had been about him, rather than serving. As soon as "serving" became uncomfortable, even embarrassing for him, he easily tossed off the duty and bolted during the summer break.

The American Founding Fathers envisioned citizens taking leave from their occupations to serve a term of office to represent their fellow citizens. The operative assumption, hopefully gained from empirical observation, was that the citizens urged to run would only grudgingly part from their businesses or farms to serve in Congress. Out of this assumption, a felt duty can be readily inferred. For an elected representative to disregard his representative role would connote an indifference to the very duty that he had accepted in agreeing to run. Likewise, to resign before the end of his term would have played as a shirking of duty, and thus as a sign of a weak character.

---

[1] The Associated Press, “Eric Cantor Plans to Resign House Seat Earlier Than Expected: Report,” The Huffington Post, August 1, 2014.
[2] Anna Palmer, Jake Sherman, and John Bresnahan, "Why Eric Cantor Really Resigned," Politico, August 1, 2014.

Scott Walker’s Recall in Wisconsin: Mob Rule?

In early March, 2012, unions and conservative groups had already “turned Wisconsin’s battle over labor rights into a national, multimillion-dollar war.”[1] In 2011, the two sides had spent $44 million in it. The unions began an effort in that year to recall Scott Walker, the government’s figurehead and chief executive, and several senators in Wisconsin’s Senate “after they pushed through legislation restricting the collective-bargaining and organizing powers of workers belonging to government-employee unions.”[2] While this depiction is cogent—a battle over labor rights involving legislation restricting collective-bargaining rights for government employees—I contend that the assumed linkage between the battle and the recall is deeply flawed.

It is one thing to contend politically over labor rights, and it is quite another to recall a sitting head of state (and senators). To cut short the term of an elected official simply because he or she favored legislation that one opposes is to violate one of the main pillars of representative democracy. Specifically, terms of office exist to enable representatives to act or vote for what they believe is in the best interest of the people even if it is not favored by popular passions of the moment. In other words, removing an elected representative from office because he or she supported or voted for legislation that one opposes is to reduce representative democracy to whatever passion happens to be felt strongest by the mob.

There is a reason why Plato and Aristotle depict two kinds of democracy in their respective typologies of government. The good form of democracy is “rule by the many” while the bad is “mob rule.” Electing representatives and giving them a fixed term of office is a principal way in which “rule by the many” (as opposed to the one or the few) is protected from sliding into the decadent “mob rule.” Seized by an ideological and partisan fever, the pro-recall Wisconsinites have been blind to their own culpability in violating a basic tenet of representative democracy.

In other words, there is a reason why the U.S. constitution requires “high crimes and misdemeanors” rather than mere legislative or ideological disagreement for the impeachment and removal of office of a U.S. President. Were disagreement itself over a piece of legislation sufficient to remove a representative from office—even if as in Scott Walker’s case the office-holder had campaigned on the issue by taking the position in question—then elections themselves are relegated. “Elections have consequences” only holds if it is agreed that the winner is not justifiably removed from office as soon as he or she starts to act (lawfully) on the campaign promises. Even if the proposal or vote had not been something mentioned in the campaign, it is not sufficient to remove a representative simply out of disagreement with his or her proposal or vote. Besides eviscerating representative democracy itself, such a recall is utterly unfair to the particular officeholders.

Were I a Wisconsinite in 2011, I would have opposed the proposal to balance the budget by restricting collective bargaining rights. Besides there being other ways, the proposal seemed like a subterfuge for union-busting to me. Not being a citizen or even resident of Wisconsin, I was merely a bystander as the recall effort, or “battle over labor rights,” unfolded given the nature of federalism and the fact that Wisconsin, like France, is a semi-sovereign republic. Generally speaking, it is inappropriate that people and organizations outside of Wisconsin contributed so much money to intervene on a political matter that was properly for the citizens and residents of Wisconsin to decide. The over-reaching by outside vested interests only added to the conflation of the issue of a recall with that of union bargaining rights.

The question for Wisconsinites was whether Scott Walker and the senators abused their respective offices by signing and voting for a piece of legislation. As their respective offices include signing and voting on legislation, doing so cannot constitute abuse of office or criminal behavior. Otherwise, it would be penalize someone for doing what they are supposed to do. It is like shooting a bird for flying. “What the hell else should I have been doing?” such a bird might wonder in loud chirps while falling to earth. It is obvious that to shoot a bird simply for flying is not fair to the bird because it is designed to fly, and yet it was difficult for many Wisconsinites to grasp that sheer disagreement with the choices made by elected officials as per the design of their respective offices does not justify removing the officials as if they had acted improperly.

Looking in from the outside, I do not think much of the strategy Scott Walker and the Republican legislators used to balance Wisconsin’s budget (though I give them credit for balancing it). Even so, it would have been highly unfair to them, were I—assuming I were a Wisconsinite—to have urged Walker’s ouster simply because he signed a law he had campaigned on (the same holds even if he had not done so). I believe in representative democracy as against mob rule more than I cherish my own ideology.

It is a pity that there were not more adults in Madison and Milwaukee in 2011. As John Adams and Thomas Jefferson wrote in their letters to each other, an educated and virtuous citizenry is vital to a viable republic; otherwise, it is apt to slide into mob rule where simply being disliked is enough to mean the end of a person. There is a reason why the delegates to the U.S. constitutional convention in 1787 distrusted partisanship. I do not believe that ideological disagreement ought to have so much sway over representative democracy itself as it has in Wisconsin.

“Elections have consequences” and “rule of law” may seem like strong pillars in Western civilization, but under the weight of vice they can quickly become woefully pliable, given the self-serving denial that is possible in human nature. Perhaps the struggle here boils down to the necessity that is in law as against the vicissitude that is in human nature. Do we respect law more than our own likes and dislikes? That is to say: as moderns, are we as civilized as we presume we are? Can presumptuous children self-govern as a people simply because they claim to be mature? These are questions for all of us who live in republics to ponder and reflect on, for they are being played out in our own day and not necessarily on some distant galaxy.

1. Alicia Mundy, “Wisconsin Recall Realigns Campaign Spending,” The Wall Street Journal, March 6, 2012.
2. Ibid.

When the Campaign Eclipses Governing: A Matter of Values

In the mix of politics and government in any republic, stretches of governance are marked off by much shorter electoral seasons.  As decision-points, election campaigns are not designed to be of a considerable duration, particularly relative to that of governing.  In other words, the point of elections is governance, whereas the objective of governance is not (and thus should not be) elections. The reason is that the function of elected representatives is to govern rather than to run yet again. When the interstices become the long lines, and the long lines are reduced to interstices, one can expect popular fatigue from incessant fighting and frustration from a lack of attention on governing.

In April of 2011, American news networks were claiming, “2012 has officially begun.” There was a conflict of interest in the assertion because the media stood to gain viewers from brewing controversies among the candidates for president. Both the candidates and the journalists stood to gain from the increased attention.  In early May, for example, The Huffington Post attempted to turn the story of Obama’s killing of Osama into one of electoral politics in the “upcoming” 2012 election. “The daring nighttime raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan draws a sharp contrast between President Barack Obama and a field of potential Republican challengers who have comparatively scant foreign policy experience.”[1] The key word here is potential. Might it be more prudent to wait for the challengers to officially announce and start actively campaigning before analysis of a “determined” set of candidates is commenced?

Moreover, the attempt to steer the foreign policy story into the field of electoral politics implicitly suffers the opportunity cost of attention being diverted from other foreign policy questions that are related to the death of bin Laden, such as whether Pakistan knew of his compound and whether U.S. foreign aid should continue. The otherwise greater intensity of coverage on Pakistan's role might have made the difference in upping the pressure to the point at which someone in Pakistan with the inside scoop would have cracked and spilled the beans on what Pakistani government officials had really known.  

One of the few downsides of a free society is that media distractions can run far and wide--even snowballing without taking root. To the extent that representatives are either behind such distractions or are pressured to join them, a republic is vulnerable to excessive democracy (the bad side of the demos identified by Plato and Aristotle with the mob). The American citizenry may be too prone to vicariously enjoy the fights of a campaign (the modern day version of going to the statium to watch the gladiators?) while finding the civic responsibility of keeping attuned to the governing (or at least letting the representatives govern in peace) too boring and banal--not sufficiently stimulating in an age of "reality" shows playing out on television. Must the lowest denominator rule in a republic?

As another example of campaigning eclipsing governing in the context of governance, the health-insurance reform in 2009 and 2010 can be cited. The question of whether there should be a government alternative to private health insurance companies quickly gave rise to health-insurance-company-sourced talking points on death-panels thrown to partisans like Sarah Palin, who was not involved in the governing. Also, whether Barak Obama was a socialist was staged as a sideshow oriented to the campaigning realm. For whatever reason, it was difficult for the media (and presumably the viewers) to stay on point even when policy makers were trying to determine the merits of a public option.  In other words, even having representatives oriented to policy discussions may not be sufficient to keep a restless media and citizenry attuned. However, even some of those representatives might have believed their policy positions to be strengthened from a campaign-oriented digression. In an open society, multiple entrance points exist for self-interested distractions.

To be sure, citizen participation during the intervals of governance is not necessary in a republic; the problem is when citizens’ diversions enabled by the media (and/or government officials) eventuate in the governors turning to campaigning even without an election in sight. A crucial difference between representative and direct democracy is that in a republic governance is delegated to representatives. In other words, the citizenry is not obliged to remain engaged once governance again takes over after an election. This does not mean, however, that the citizenry must take the bait when some representatives are tempted to divert from governance by starting the next election cycle too early. Nor does it mean that elected representatives must take the bait from some journalists who suspect a wider viewership (or readership) could be obtained from stirring up campaign controversies even years before the next election.

Perhaps the underlying question is whether a representative democracy necessarily succumbs to the lowest common denominator, or whether a citizenry has the requisite impulse control to maintain the viability of the political system by refusing to distract the governors from their governing (or to take the bait from bored or campaign-oriented officials). It is essentially a matter of what the citizenry values: the duration wherein representatives govern or the titillating excitement of a childish fight at the expense of governing. The funny thing about a republic is that what we observe in our representatives can be a reflection of ourselves.  We blame them exclusively at our own folly. In other words, it takes two to tangle. If there is an adult in the house, perhaps we could get on with governing.

1. Charles Babington, “GOP Presidential Field For 2012 Maintains Foreign Policy Void,” The Huffington Post, May 5, 2011.

See Jeff Zelleny, “Obama Will Move Political Operations to Chicago,” The New York Times, January 20, 2011.